Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-c9gpj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-15T13:46:03.991Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Word and pseudoword superiority effects in Italian–English bilinguals*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2009

GIORDANA GROSSI ,
JEREMY MURPHY  and
JOSH BOGGAN
GIORDANA GROSSI*
Affiliation:
State University of New York at New Paltz
JEREMY MURPHY
Affiliation:
State University of New York at New Paltz
JOSH BOGGAN
Affiliation:
State University of New York at New Paltz
*
Address for correspondence: Giordana Grossi, Department of Psychology, State University of New York at New Paltz, 600 Hawk Drive, New Paltz, NY 12561, USAgrossig@newpaltz.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Two indices of automatic orthographic processing, the word and pseudoword superiority effects, were explored in native Italian speakers familiar with English (late learners) and native English-speaking controls unfamiliar with Italian. Participants performed a forced-choice letter identification task with five categories of words: Italian words and pseudowords, English words and pseudowords, and nonwords. Native Italian speakers showed superiority effects for both languages, whereas English-speaking controls showed superiority effects only for English. These results suggest that orthographic processing can become automatic with extensive training in late bilinguals.

Type
Research Note
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , January 2009 , pp. 113 - 120
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Many thanks to Ray Vukcevich for assisting with the programming of the experiment, and to all the subjects who participated in the study. Many thanks are also due to Despina Paizi and Cristina Burani for their assistance with Italian norms, and Donna Coch, for her invaluable comments on an early version of the manuscript.

References

Alternberg, E. P. & Cairns, H. S. (1983). The effects of phonotactic constraints on lexical processing in bilingual and monolingual subjects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 174–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barca, L., Burani, C. & Arduino, L. S. (2002). Word naming times and psycholinguistic norms for Italian nouns. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 34, 424–434.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baron, J. (1974). Facilitation of perception by spelling constraints. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 28, 37–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baron, J. & Thurston, I. (1973). An analysis of the word-superiority effect. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 207–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bijeljac-Babic, R., Biardeau, A. & Grainger, J. (1997). Masked orthographic priming in bilingual word recognition. Memory & Cognition, 25 (4), 447–457.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carr, T. H. & Pollatsek, A. (1985). Recognizing printed words: A look at the current models. In Besner, D., Waller, T. G. & MacKinnon, G. E. (eds.), Reading research: Advances in theory and practice, vol. 5, pp. 1–82. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chase, C. H. & Tallal, P. (1990). A developmental, interactive activation model of the word superiority effect. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 49, 448–487.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davis, C. J. (2005). N-Watch: A program for deriving neighborhood size and other psycholinguistic statistics. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 65–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dehaene, S., Cohen, L., Sigman, M. & Vinckier, F. (2005). The neural code for written words: A proposal. Trends in Cognitive Science, 9 (7), 335–341.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Favreau, M., Komoda, M. K. & Segalowitz, N. (1980). Second language reading: Implication of the word superiority effect in skilled bilinguals. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 34, 370–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Federici, C. & Riga, C. (2003). Ciao (5th edn.). Canada: Thomson Heinle & Heinle.Google Scholar
Forster, K. I., Mohan, K. & Hector, J. (2003). The mechanisms of masked priming. In Kinoshita, S. & Lupker, S. J. (eds.), Masked priming. The state of the art, pp. 3–37. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Frenck-Mestre, C. (1993). Use of orthographic redundancies and word identification speed in bilinguals. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22 (4), 397–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gauthier, I. & Tarr, M. J. (1997). Becoming a “Greeble” expert: Exploring mechanisms for face recognition. Vision Research, 37 (12), 1673–1682.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grainger, J., Bouttevin, S., Truc, C., Bastien, M. & Ziegler, J. (2003). Word superiority, pseudoword superiority, and learning to read: A comparison of dyslexic and normal readers. Brain and Language, 87, 432–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grainger, J. & Jacobs, A. M. (1994). A dual read-out model of word context effects in letter perception: Further investigation of the word superiority effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20 (6), 1158–1176.Google Scholar
Grainger, J. & Whitney, C. (2004). Does the huamn mnid raed wrods as a wlohe? Trends in Cognitive Science, 8 (2), 58–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grossi, G., Thierry, G., Thomas, E. & Di Pietro, J. (2008). Word and pseudoword superiority effects in early/native Welsh–English bilinguals. Presented at 49th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society. Chicago, 13–16 November 2008.Google Scholar
Henderson, L. & Chard, J. (1980). The reader's implicit knowledge of orthographic structure. In Frith, U. (ed.), Cognitive processes in spelling, pp. 85–116. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Krueger, L. E. (1992). The word-superiority effect and phonological recoding. Memory & Cognition, 20, 685–694.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krueger, L. E., Keen, R. H. & Rublevich, B. (1974). Letter search through words and nonwords by adults and fourth-grade children. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 102 (5), 845–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kucera, H. & Francis, W. N. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.Google Scholar
LaBerge, D. (1981). Automatic information processing: A review. In Long, J. & Baddeley, A. (eds.), Attention and performance IX, pp. 173–186. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Laudanna, A., Thornton, A. M., Brown, G., Burani, C. & Marconi, L. (1995). Un corpus dell'italiano scritto contemporaneo dalla parte del ricevente. In Bolasco, S., Lebart, L. & Salem, A. (eds.), III Giornate internazionali di Analisi Statistica dei Dati Testuali, vol. I, pp.103–109. Roma: Cisu.Google Scholar
Logan, G. D. (1992). Attention and preattention in theories of automaticity. American Journal of Psychology, 105 (2), 317–339.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCandliss, B. D., Cohen, L. & Dehaene, S. (2003). The visual word form area: Expertise for reading in the fusiform gyrus. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7 (7), 293–299.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCaughey, M. W., Juola, J. F., Schadler, M. & Ward, N. J. (1980). Whole-word units are used before orthographic knowledge in perceptual development. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 30, 411–421.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McClelland, J. L. (1976). Preliminary letter identification in the perception of words and nonwords. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2, 80–91.Google ScholarPubMed
McClelland, J. L. (1979). On the time relations of mental processes: An examination of systems of processes in cascade. Psychological Review, 86, 287–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClelland, J. L. & Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception, part I: An account of basic findings. Psychological Review, 88, 375–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh Inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9, 97–113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Polk, T. A. & Farah, M. J. (1995). Late experience alters vision. Nature, 376, 648–649.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Posner, M. I. & Snyder, C. R. R. (1975). Attention and cognitive control. In Solso, R. L. (ed.), Information processing and cognition: The Loyola symposium, pp. 55–85. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Prinzmetal, W. (1992). The word-superiority effect does not require a T-scope. Perception & Psychophysics, 51 (5), 473–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reicher, G. M. (1969). Perceptual recognition as a function of meaningfulness of stimulus material. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81 (2), 275–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spoehr, K. T. & Smith, E. E. (1975). The role of phonotactic and rules in perceiving letter patterns. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1, 21–34.Google Scholar
van Heuven, W. J. B., Dijkstra, T. & Grainger, J. (1998). Orthographic neighborhood effects in bilingual word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 458–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheeler, D. D. (1970). Processes in word recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 1, 59–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar